Of course, Scythian could refer to a rather vague eastern geographic origin and should probably not be regarded as a precise ethnic or tribal reference. I'm not saying its use in the Book of Invasions is anything more than a myth, but the argument that it can't be right because we know the ancient Scythians spoke an Indo-Iranian language and belonged to the all-glorious and exalted y haplogroup R1a1 is just a non-sequitur.

Oh thanks for the clarification I clearly misread the original post, so what Mike was discussing was the genealogical myths of Ireland, their classical influences, references to Scythia and NOT discussing the probability of an admixture of Haplogroups in Ireland, along with the possibility of R U106 as having maybe arrived there at some early time? Well again I offer my appreciation to the Moderator for the guidance on that and Mike? My apologies as I did not realize you started this thread on Lebor Gabála Érenn. Given that is the case I wonder if Crom Crúach is a symbolic representation of Friesian invaders to Eire?

... can't be right because we know the ancient Scythians spoke an Indo-Iranian language and belonged to the all-glorious and exalted y haplogroup R1a1 is just a non-sequitur.

Now, now. Don't let the Rah-Rah-R1aians get your goat. It's just a haplogroup. I don't exalt any of them. I'm talking sense as I always do. :) The Scythians as known to ancient authors arrived on the European steppe in the 8th century BC from Asia. They were the descendants of people who had left the east end of the European steppe long before - in the Bronze Age. They are a different branch of the IE family from the ancestors of the Celts.

Mike's post was lengthy and varied. You picked one point out of it. Others picked another it seems:

Quote

Even Irish mythology, the Book of Invasions is the book invasions. Why should we think there was only one invasion when all Gaels or pre-Gaels came to Ireland.

Can we please dispense with angry attacks on anyone who fails to discuss the one point of interest to you, and on the moderator for failing to force everyone to discuss the one point of interest to you. There is in fact no way to force the users of any forum to discuss anything that does not interest them.

No doubt that the Irish are an admixture. The nationalism that swept Europe in the late 19th century and first half of the 20th century meant that a cult of nativism sprung up. The basic upshot was the idea that some people where the real deal and others were blow-ins and lesser in terms of belonging. Well that led to the gas chambers and the biggest war the world has ever known. So I am no fan of the nativism-nationalism type angle when applied to DNA.

From archaeology two phases that cannot be denied are the first Mesolithic settlers (whose technology and date would seem to point to an origin in north Britain) and the Neolithic first farmers (who likely came from northern France, often via Britain). Its absurd to deny those inputs. What they were I do not know. I suspect there heritage is way bigger than yDNA suggests and probably between them the origin of most of the genetics of the modern Irish.

Beyond them the evidence has always been less clear. There is a mania on the internet for the idea of a 'meglaithic culture' linking all the areas of megaliths. Beleive me, this is nonsense. Megalithism, the concept of building ritual and burial structures with large stone, is known in many cultures across vast areas of the world and across about 10000 years. The concept of these cultures as being linked (other than relatively moderate distance links within the isles) was exploded soon after Radiocarbon became available in the 60s. I think Renfrew wrote the first book that demolished the idea. So forget all the guff about megalithic Atlantic cultures stretching from Cyprus to Scandinavia. Its nonsense in the Eric Von Daniken type school of Atlantis archaeology.

Next up is the beakers. People have always suspected they represented a small group of incomers bringing knowledge of metals etc to Ireland. DNA is indicating their impact was much much bigger than would ever have been guessed at by archaeological remains.

Bronze and Iron Ages- well few see invasions in this period but there was clearly mobility and contact, mainlly seen in the metalwork. Its hard to interpret this. If Ireland's quirky beaker phase (which was generally thought of a less indicative of much migration than in Britain) represents something that ultimately produced most of the male lines in Ireland then the bar for evidence of migration is lowered to a degree that it makes it hard to rule out other migrations and movements in the Bronze and Iron Ages. The La Tene group in the northern two-thirds of Ireland is no lesser in terms of how intrusive it looks than the beaker period (both being peculiarly Irish in form). The Iron Age material in Ireland is closest linked to Britain and Gaul (there is not a single Celti-Iberrian object known). I would suspect most of any such contact was also L21.

I think that the autosomal DNA of the Irish is dominated by Mesolithic and Neolithic DNA. By the late point in time north farming reached coastal France was reached may have not been as clearly separate in the way it was during LBK - the Cerny culture farmers used a lot of hunting symbolism http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb3284/is_278_72/ai_n28718713/.

To this there seems to have been a copper and early Bronze Age addition of R1b most likely from an Atlantic France and Atlantic British source. I beiieve that any further intrusions in the Bronze and Iron Ages would almost be like history repeating itself and would again be largely L21 folks from Britain and Atlantic France. It seems like all the near approaches to Ireland were early dominated by L21 in the copper age, meaning that almost all future intruders to Ireland prior to the Vikings would also be L21 dominated.

Some L21 entered the Isles with the Saxons, Vikings and Normans.There are plenty of L21 folks in Germany and Scandinavia.There are people with Norman surnames in Ireland and claim Norman descent that are L21.

Why do people keep bringing up "Leabhar Gabhála na hÉireann" (Book of the takings of Ireland)? Everyone working on early Irish history agrees that is a prognostic political tract, however it keeps coming up on the interenet when we talk about DNA. It doesn't have any relevance.

Mentions of Sycthia is specifically about christianing early Irish history. Thence the two stories regarding the Irish at the Tower of Babel etc. Or the concept that the Irish language was conceived in the libraries of Alexandria by taking the best and greatest of every language and combining it together.

Thus it's part of a wider body of texts which try to align early proto-history with the Christian and Greco-Roman worlds. One of major tasks in it of course was the concept that the gods became mortals been protrayed as been the inhabitants of Ireland before the Irish. Given that the Tuatha Dé bear names of deities that are common across Celtic Europe this is quite obviously transparent. (example the god Lugh = Lugus in Gaulish/Celtiberian)

Anyways back to the question at hand, of course the Irish are admixed, the island has been inhabited for 10,000 years. In comparison we can only calculate that Proto-Celtic broke up by at least 1,000 BC (3,000 years ago)

If you ask me what L21 is showing is mass replacement of male lines which probably ties in with societal model in Ireland until the 17th century conquestion/annihilation of Irish society. There was no concept of illegmitacy in Irish society. The son of a concubine was just as likely to inherit as the son of a legimate wife, likewise Divorce was rife. Here's some extracts from "Gaelic and Gaelicized Ireland in the Middle Ages" (K.W. Nicholls) which is absolutley recommended reading if you want to understand what Irish society was like before the catastrophe of over a century from 1540 to 1652.

Quote

One of the most important phenomena in a clan-based society is that of expansion from the top downwards. The seventeenth-century Irish scholar and genealogist Dualtagh Mac Firbisigh remarked that 'as the sons and families of the rulers multiplied, so their subjects and followers were squeezed out and withered away; and this penomenon, the expansion of the ruling or dominant stocks at th expense of the remainder, is a normal feature in societies of this type. It has been observed of the modern Basotho of South Africa that 'there is a constant displacement of commoners by royals [i.e. members of the royal clan] and of collateral royals by the direct descendants of the ruling prince;, and this could have been said without adaptation , of any important Gaelic or Gaelicized lordship of late medieval Ireland.In Fermanagh, for example the kingship of the Maguires began only with the accession of Donn Mór in 1282 and the ramification of the family - with the exception of one or two small and territorially unimportant septs - began with the sons of the same man. the spread of his descendants can be seen by the genealogical tract called Geinelaighe Fhearmanach; by 1607 they must have been in the possesion of at least three-quarters of the total soil of Fermanagh, having displaced or reduced the clans which had previously held it. The rate which an Irish clan could itself must not be underestimated. Tulrlough an fhíona O'Donnell, lord of Tirconnell (d. 1423) had eighteen sons (by ten different women) and fifty-nine grandsons in the male line. Mulmora O'Reilly, the lord of East Brefny, who died in 1566, had at least fifty-eight O'Reilly grandsons. Philip Maguire, lord of Fermanagh (d. 1395) had twenty sons by eight mohters, and we know of at least fifty grandsons. Oliver Burke of Tirawley (two of whose became Lower Mac William although he himself had never held that position) left at least thirty-eight grandsons in the male line. Irish law drew no distinction in matters of inheritance between the legitimate and the illegitimate and permitted the affiliation of children by their mother's declaration (see Chapter 4), and the general sexual permissiveness of medieval Irish society must have allowed a rate of multiplication approaching that which is permitted by the polygyny practised in, for instance, the clan socieities of southern Africa already cited.

Going on what we know of DNA and joining dots using the above Maguire was probably L513+/L69+ (Airghialla II). O'Donnell could have indeed been M222+ (he was the lord of Donegal, Northern Uí Néill). Burke of Tirawley above is an "Anglo-norman" who became more "Irish then then Irish themselves". The thing is though even when practising Irish law and marriage customs they still regarded themselves as english (Gall) based on male-line lineage. Here is a great post from Boards.ie from a poster who has written a thesis on the Burke lordship of Mayo.

Quote

Originally Posted by Bannasidhe Don't assume an Irish name means Catholic - many Irish 'converted' when they submitted- the best example being the O'Briens earls of Thomond who were Anglican and one can't get more Irish then the descendants of Boru!

Race is often brought into this when, in fact, the concept of 'race' as we know it was only beginning to develop and didn't really start to be a major issue until much later. The main issues of contention then were religion and culture. In Ireland under the Tudors Culture was the main thing with far more emphasis being placed on the annihilation of Gaelic culture then on religious conversion.

It might be worth discussing the Gaelic Irish conception of 'race' here. To them there were two types of people - An Gael (the 'Irish') and An Gáll (everyone else!). The Scots confused the issue a bit as they were also 'Gaelic' but when living in Ireland were usually referred to as Gálloglaigh (gallowglass - foreign warrior).When the Gaelic Irish referred to their 'race' they meant their specific Clan and their 'country' was their clan lands. Although they may collectively occasionally refer to themselves as 'Irish' - this was more akin to us calling ourselves 'European' than an assumption of a national identity.

A person's 'race' was defined by their surname - descent was patrilinier [i.e through the male line].

To illustrate by way of example:Gráinne Ní Mháille (Lit - Gráinne daughter of [distant male ancestor] Máille) was An Gael. Her 'country' was Umhall Uí Máille - now Murrisk in Mayo.Her first husband was Domhnaill Na Chogaidh Ua Flaithbhertaigh (Domhnaill son of [distant male ancestor] Flaithbhertaigh of Iar Chonnacht. Also An Gael.

They had a daughter Máireadh Ni Fhlaithbhertaigh - she was An Gael. She married Risteard Mac Deamon an Chorrán á Búrc of Erris[ descendent of William Concur de Burgh via Eamonn Albanach á Búrc and Sabh Ní Mháille who founded the Mayo Bourkes) - An Gáll as his patrilinier line of descent was not Gaelic. Culturally he was completely Gaelic and fought against Anglicisation his entire life. Máireadh and Mac Deamon had a son - Daithi á Búrc = An Gáll.

Gráinne and Domhnaill's son Muirtaigh Na Moar Ua Flaithbhertaigh - An Gael - married Cáitriona á Búrc -[ also descended from William Concur de Burgh but of the Galway branch) An Gáll. Their children were all 'An Gael'.

When Domhnaill died, Gráinne returned to Umhall Uí Máille - i.e. her 'race' and her 'country' as her husband's death had ended the marriage alliance and as a 'foreigner' she had no business being in Iar Chonnacht. Her 3 children from the marriage stayed as they were of the 'race' of Flaithbhertaigh.

Gráinne later married Risteard In Iarainn á Búrc of Burrishoole (Mayo Bourkes]- (Risteard In Iarainn was the nephew of Gráinne's first husband via the marriage of Daithi á Búrc to Fionnghula Ní Fhlaithbhertaigh) he was An Gáll. They had one son - Tibboid na Long á Búrc - Yup, he was An Gáll. He married Meabh Ni Chonchobhair Sligigh - guess what she was...yes..An Gael! but their children bore the surname á Búrc making them all An Gáll.

The Uí Chonchobhair Sligigh was loyal to the crown of England but Sliocht Ullig - one of the 4 main septs of the Mayo Bourkes (collectively known as the Mac Uilliam Íochtair) [Sliocht Ullig's 'country' was Burrishoole, Erris and Achill] of whom Gáinne's second husband, youngest son and son-in-law were all members (and at some point all sept leaders and holders of the banned title of Mac Uilliam Íochtair) engaged in a 30 year war to try and prevent Anglicisation. Richard Bingham particularly targeted them for harsh reprisals - including the hanging of 3 children under 5 in 1586. So the main opposition to the Tudors in North Connacht was conducted by people who called themselves 'English' but refused to give up Gaelic Culture while among those aiding the Crown were the (Anglican) O'Briens of Thomond - descendants of Ború and Uí Chonchobhair Sligigh - descendent of the O'Connor kings of Connacht and (occasional) high kings of Ireland. All of them 'Irish' to the core.

When we say Irish fought English - who exactly were the 'Irish' and who were the 'English'? Perhaps this blurring of the racial boundaries is why the powerful, rebellious and utterly committed to Gaelic culture Mac Uilliam Íochtair á Búrcs of Mayo are nearly invisible in Irish historiography - even though they fought longer and harder than anyone else against the Tudors and were the reason Connacht remained the most 'Irish' of the provinces...but they called themselves 'English'....

Some L21 entered the Isles with the Saxons, Vikings and Normans.There are plenty of L21 folks in Germany and Scandinavia.There are people with Norman surnames in Ireland and claim Norman descent that are L21.

do you suppose some L21 also entered the Isles during the Norse/Viking times from perhaps Scandinavia?

However, L21 seems very rare from the traditional homeland of the Angles and Saxons so I would only put a tiny amount of L21 as being down to them. I reckon its possible more came with the Norwegians but I have an open mind on that. Lets be clear, L21 really crashes in SE England compared even to the western half of England and I think most L21 in eastern England is down to the Britons.

Regarding language I feel I should clear up some of mess regarding Q vs. P Celtic. By default the reconstructed proto-Celtic would be classed as Q-Celtic. This specific sound is actually a feature of Proto-Indo-European.

One of the features of Proto-Celtic compared to Proto-IE is the loss of Indo-European P.

The "Q" -> P shift occurred considerably later after Proto-Celtic was probably over a wide range. It's comparable to the sound shifts in German (High German has several for example d -> t -- tag vs. dag/day (Dutch/English))

It also happened in Italic and Greek languages. For example Latin and the romance languages could be called "Q-Italic" given that a number of extinct italic languages had undergone sound change. Likewise the writings of Mycaenan Greek on Linear B tables from the Bronze age could be classed as "Q-Greek" whereas Greek from the Classical era onwards could be classed as "P-Greek"

Example:Example

Irish: CeathairFrench: QuatreLatin: Quattuor

vs.

Welsh: Pedwar/Pedair (Masculine/Feminine)Gaulish: Petuarios

---Everyone of course talks about the Q/P spilt but there are several other ones in surviving Celtic languages. A good example is the following:

Proto-IE "w" -> Irish "f" / Welsh "gw"

The sound shift to different sounds in different branches of existing Celtic languages. This can be seen by looking at Gaulish where the shift didn't happen, as well as other IE languages:

Hence the irish word for vision is Fís compared to Latin Visio -- resulting in Telifís vs. Television

Comparing Irish and Welsh when you know the above rule you can see that the words fionn (find in old irish) and gwen are cognates. Both derive from proto-Celtic vindos/windos.

In the Táin the daughter of Meadhbh is Findabair (Fionnabhair), this name is cognate with the welsh Gwenhwyfar -- or as it's known to english speakers: Guinevere

Another example of course is the word Gael. In old-Irish the term most often used would have been féni -- which gave rise to Fian (warrior)/ Fianna (warrior band) and to modern english word Fenian (Fenian Brotherhood of 19th century). This is cognative with word in Brythonic that eventually became Gael. So why did we adopt this word, simple the early church in Ireland was completely Brythonic dominated. All the missionaries came from Celtic-speaking Britain. Irish as a written language was formulated along many similiar rules seen in Welsh (initial mutations for example). This basically created a Sprachbund eg. area of linguistic convergence of two languages that were already closely related. In proto-Celtic the word would be Veni- which shows up in lots of names of distinctic tribal groupings.

Even the most Irish of first names Patrick is a borrowing, mainly as Archaic Irish lacked a P sound (lost in Proto-Celtic) the oldest writings use the name used a form that swapped the p for a c (c is always hard in Irish). Wiki has good run down of the progression:

The *Qatrikias example is very apt, for example people look at Ptomley map and assume that the names are P-Celtic however they forget that the Greeks didn't the Q sound anymore and pronunced it in Greek, likewise if the information had been gained secondhand from Roman Britain the locals (speaking "p-celtic") would have the pronunced names with a P sound -- like way in archaic Irish the P was pronunced as a Q. This in my opinion has sowed confusion.

Proto-Celtic is by definition "Q-Celtic" in structure (it inherits the sound from Proto-IE). The distrubition of "Q-Celtic" languages is in the periphery of Iron age "Celtic Europe" eg. Ireland and Spain. If you ask me the sound change probably arose in and around the Alps possibly due to assimilation of non-IE speakers (who didn't have the sound in their phonology). During the Hallstat/La Tene area this became a major prestige area as a result the use rippled out among a larger Proto-Celtic speaking area.

As a modern example think of way accents change due to assumption that certain phonological features are more "hip/Cool" etc. This and mass-media leads to a "dialect flattening" where features of a "prestige" accent are adopted among speakers of a multitude of accents.

Why do people keep bringing up "Leabhar Gabhála na hÉireann" (Book of the takings of Ireland)? Everyone working on early Irish history agrees that is a prognostic political tract, however it keeps coming up on the interenet when we talk about DNA. It doesn't have any relevance.

Mentions of Sycthia is specifically about christianing early Irish history. Thence the two stories regarding the Irish at the Tower of Babel etc. Or the concept that the Irish language was conceived in the libraries of Alexandria by taking the best and greatest of every language and combining it together.

Thus it's part of a wider body of texts which try to align early proto-history with the Christian and Greco-Roman worlds. One of major tasks in it of course was the concept that the gods became mortals been protrayed as been the inhabitants of Ireland before the Irish. Given that the Tuatha Dé bear names of deities that are common across Celtic Europe this is quite obviously transparent. (example the god Lugh = Lugus in Gaulish/Celtiberian)

Anyways back to the question at hand, of course the Irish are admixed, the island has been inhabited for 10,000 years. In comparison we can only calculate that Proto-Celtic broke up by at least 1,000 BC (3,000 years ago)

If you ask me what L21 is showing is mass replacement of male lines which probably ties in with societal model in Ireland until the 17th century conquestion/annihilation of Irish society. There was no concept of illegmitacy in Irish society. The son of a concubine was just as likely to inherit as the son of a legimate wife, likewise Divorce was rife. Here's some extracts from "Gaelic and Gaelicized Ireland in the Middle Ages" (K.W. Nicholls) which is absolutley recommended reading if you want to understand what Irish society was like before the catastrophe of over a century from 1540 to 1652.

Quote

One of the most important phenomena in a clan-based society is that of expansion from the top downwards. The seventeenth-century Irish scholar and genealogist Dualtagh Mac Firbisigh remarked that 'as the sons and families of the rulers multiplied, so their subjects and followers were squeezed out and withered away; and this penomenon, the expansion of the ruling or dominant stocks at th expense of the remainder, is a normal feature in societies of this type. It has been observed of the modern Basotho of South Africa that 'there is a constant displacement of commoners by royals [i.e. members of the royal clan] and of collateral royals by the direct descendants of the ruling prince;, and this could have been said without adaptation , of any important Gaelic or Gaelicized lordship of late medieval Ireland.In Fermanagh, for example the kingship of the Maguires began only with the accession of Donn Mór in 1282 and the ramification of the family - with the exception of one or two small and territorially unimportant septs - began with the sons of the same man. the spread of his descendants can be seen by the genealogical tract called Geinelaighe Fhearmanach; by 1607 they must have been in the possesion of at least three-quarters of the total soil of Fermanagh, having displaced or reduced the clans which had previously held it. The rate which an Irish clan could itself must not be underestimated. Tulrlough an fhíona O'Donnell, lord of Tirconnell (d. 1423) had eighteen sons (by ten different women) and fifty-nine grandsons in the male line. Mulmora O'Reilly, the lord of East Brefny, who died in 1566, had at least fifty-eight O'Reilly grandsons. Philip Maguire, lord of Fermanagh (d. 1395) had twenty sons by eight mohters, and we know of at least fifty grandsons. Oliver Burke of Tirawley (two of whose became Lower Mac William although he himself had never held that position) left at least thirty-eight grandsons in the male line. Irish law drew no distinction in matters of inheritance between the legitimate and the illegitimate and permitted the affiliation of children by their mother's declaration (see Chapter 4), and the general sexual permissiveness of medieval Irish society must have allowed a rate of multiplication approaching that which is permitted by the polygyny practised in, for instance, the clan socieities of southern Africa already cited.

Going on what we know of DNA and joining dots using the above Maguire was probably L513+/L69+ (Airghialla II). O'Donnell could have indeed been M222+ (he was the lord of Donegal, Northern Uí Néill). Burke of Tirawley above is an "Anglo-norman" who became more "Irish then then Irish themselves". The thing is though even when practising Irish law and marriage customs they still regarded themselves as english (Gall) based on male-line lineage. Here is a great post from Boards.ie from a poster who has written a thesis on the Burke lordship of Mayo.

Quote

Originally Posted by Bannasidhe Don't assume an Irish name means Catholic - many Irish 'converted' when they submitted- the best example being the O'Briens earls of Thomond who were Anglican and one can't get more Irish then the descendants of Boru!

Race is often brought into this when, in fact, the concept of 'race' as we know it was only beginning to develop and didn't really start to be a major issue until much later. The main issues of contention then were religion and culture. In Ireland under the Tudors Culture was the main thing with far more emphasis being placed on the annihilation of Gaelic culture then on religious conversion.

It might be worth discussing the Gaelic Irish conception of 'race' here. To them there were two types of people - An Gael (the 'Irish') and An Gáll (everyone else!). The Scots confused the issue a bit as they were also 'Gaelic' but when living in Ireland were usually referred to as Gálloglaigh (gallowglass - foreign warrior).When the Gaelic Irish referred to their 'race' they meant their specific Clan and their 'country' was their clan lands. Although they may collectively occasionally refer to themselves as 'Irish' - this was more akin to us calling ourselves 'European' than an assumption of a national identity.

A person's 'race' was defined by their surname - descent was patrilinier [i.e through the male line].

To illustrate by way of example:Gráinne Ní Mháille (Lit - Gráinne daughter of [distant male ancestor] Máille) was An Gael. Her 'country' was Umhall Uí Máille - now Murrisk in Mayo.Her first husband was Domhnaill Na Chogaidh Ua Flaithbhertaigh (Domhnaill son of [distant male ancestor] Flaithbhertaigh of Iar Chonnacht. Also An Gael.

They had a daughter Máireadh Ni Fhlaithbhertaigh - she was An Gael. She married Risteard Mac Deamon an Chorrán á Búrc of Erris[ descendent of William Concur de Burgh via Eamonn Albanach á Búrc and Sabh Ní Mháille who founded the Mayo Bourkes) - An Gáll as his patrilinier line of descent was not Gaelic. Culturally he was completely Gaelic and fought against Anglicisation his entire life. Máireadh and Mac Deamon had a son - Daithi á Búrc = An Gáll.

Gráinne and Domhnaill's son Muirtaigh Na Moar Ua Flaithbhertaigh - An Gael - married Cáitriona á Búrc -[ also descended from William Concur de Burgh but of the Galway branch) An Gáll. Their children were all 'An Gael'.

When Domhnaill died, Gráinne returned to Umhall Uí Máille - i.e. her 'race' and her 'country' as her husband's death had ended the marriage alliance and as a 'foreigner' she had no business being in Iar Chonnacht. Her 3 children from the marriage stayed as they were of the 'race' of Flaithbhertaigh.

Gráinne later married Risteard In Iarainn á Búrc of Burrishoole (Mayo Bourkes]- (Risteard In Iarainn was the nephew of Gráinne's first husband via the marriage of Daithi á Búrc to Fionnghula Ní Fhlaithbhertaigh) he was An Gáll. They had one son - Tibboid na Long á Búrc - Yup, he was An Gáll. He married Meabh Ni Chonchobhair Sligigh - guess what she was...yes..An Gael! but their children bore the surname á Búrc making them all An Gáll.

The Uí Chonchobhair Sligigh was loyal to the crown of England but Sliocht Ullig - one of the 4 main septs of the Mayo Bourkes (collectively known as the Mac Uilliam Íochtair) [Sliocht Ullig's 'country' was Burrishoole, Erris and Achill] of whom Gáinne's second husband, youngest son and son-in-law were all members (and at some point all sept leaders and holders of the banned title of Mac Uilliam Íochtair) engaged in a 30 year war to try and prevent Anglicisation. Richard Bingham particularly targeted them for harsh reprisals - including the hanging of 3 children under 5 in 1586. So the main opposition to the Tudors in North Connacht was conducted by people who called themselves 'English' but refused to give up Gaelic Culture while among those aiding the Crown were the (Anglican) O'Briens of Thomond - descendants of Ború and Uí Chonchobhair Sligigh - descendent of the O'Connor kings of Connacht and (occasional) high kings of Ireland. All of them 'Irish' to the core.

When we say Irish fought English - who exactly were the 'Irish' and who were the 'English'? Perhaps this blurring of the racial boundaries is why the powerful, rebellious and utterly committed to Gaelic culture Mac Uilliam Íochtair á Búrcs of Mayo are nearly invisible in Irish historiography - even though they fought longer and harder than anyone else against the Tudors and were the reason Connacht remained the most 'Irish' of the provinces...but they called themselves 'English'....

It's a funny old world when ya have a poke at it!

Totally agree re the book of invasions. If any of it correlates with truth then its chance. Given that they place the Irish travelling in a huge sweep of an enormous area from Scythia to Greece, Egypt, Iberia they have simply got to get bits right here and there! However as factual stuff its 99% fabrication and basically as useful as a chocolate teapot as history. Unfortunately the internet has reanimated this work of fiction when scholars saw through it generations ago. Absolutely noone with expertise in this area see any value in the book of invasions as history.

Personally I'm delighted that my Y-Chromosome shows connections with the continent and areas that were predominately Celtic speaking at one stage. From the 1960's onwards there were a revisionistic bent in academia that there were never any sort of population change and that the people of today in Ireland (and Britain for that want) were basically the same population since the Stone age who just adopted language/customs through "cultural diffusion"

Personally I think the bulk of Irish autosome is going to be quite old, however the massive shift in male lineages shows that something did change from the Bronze age onwards. Not only that it ties specifically to the continent. The builders of Newgrange weren't L21+ for example (it's over 5,000 years old).

Regarding language I feel I should clear up some of mess regarding Q vs. P Celtic. By default the reconstructed proto-Celtic would be classed as Q-Celtic. This specific sound is actually a feature of Proto-Indo-European.

One of the features of Proto-Celtic compared to Proto-IE is the loss of Indo-European P.

The "Q" -> P shift occurred considerably later after Proto-Celtic was probably over a wide range. It's comparable to the sound shifts in German (High German has several for example d -> t -- tag vs. dag/day (Dutch/English))

It also happened in Italic and Greek languages. For example Latin and the romance languages could be called "Q-Italic" given that a number of extinct italic languages had undergone sound change. Likewise the writings of Mycaenan Greek on Linear B tables from the Bronze age could be classed as "Q-Greek" whereas Greek from the Classical era onwards could be classed as "P-Greek"

Example:Example

Irish: CeathairFrench: QuatreLatin: Quattuor

vs.

Welsh: Pedwar/Pedair (Masculine/Feminine)Gaulish: Petuarios

---Everyone of course talks about the Q/P spilt but there are several other ones in surviving Celtic languages. A good example is the following:

Proto-IE "w" -> Irish "f" / Welsh "gw"

The sound shift to different sounds in different branches of existing Celtic languages. This can be seen by looking at Gaulish where the shift didn't happen, as well as other IE languages:

Hence the irish word for vision is Fís compared to Latin Visio -- resulting in Telifís vs. Television

Comparing Irish and Welsh when you know the above rule you can see that the words fionn (find in old irish) and gwen are cognates. Both derive from proto-Celtic vindos/windos.

In the Táin the daughter of Meadhbh is Findabair (Fionnabhair), this name is cognate with the welsh Gwenhwyfar -- or as it's known to english speakers: Guinevere

Another example of course is the word Gael. In old-Irish the term most often used would have been féni -- which gave rise to Fian (warrior)/ Fianna (warrior band) and to modern english word Fenian (Fenian Brotherhood of 19th century). This is cognative with word in Brythonic that eventually became Gael. So why did we adopt this word, simple the early church in Ireland was completely Brythonic dominated. All the missionaries came from Celtic-speaking Britain. Irish as a written language was formulated along many similiar rules seen in Welsh (initial mutations for example). This basically created a Sprachbund eg. area of linguistic convergence of two languages that were already closely related. In proto-Celtic the word would be Veni- which shows up in lots of names of distinctic tribal groupings.

Even the most Irish of first names Patrick is a borrowing, mainly as Archaic Irish lacked a P sound (lost in Proto-Celtic) the oldest writings use the name used a form that swapped the p for a c (c is always hard in Irish). Wiki has good run down of the progression:

The *Qatrikias example is very apt, for example people look at Ptomley map and assume that the names are P-Celtic however they forget that the Greeks didn't the Q sound anymore and pronunced it in Greek, likewise if the information had been gained secondhand from Roman Britain the locals (speaking "p-celtic") would have the pronunced names with a P sound -- like way in archaic Irish the P was pronunced as a Q. This in my opinion has sowed confusion.

Proto-Celtic is by definition "Q-Celtic" in structure (it inherits the sound from Proto-IE). The distrubition of "Q-Celtic" languages is in the periphery of Iron age "Celtic Europe" eg. Ireland and Spain. If you ask me the sound change probably arose in and around the Alps possibly due to assimilation of non-IE speakers (who didn't have the sound in their phonology). During the Hallstat/La Tene area this became a major prestige area as a result the use rippled out among a larger Proto-Celtic speaking area.

As a modern example think of way accents change due to assumption that certain phonological features are more "hip/Cool" etc. This and mass-media leads to a "dialect flattening" where features of a "prestige" accent are adopted among speakers of a multitude of accents.

I have often wondered if there is a pattern among Celtic, Italic etc as to which areas morphed the ! into P. If there a common pattern? In Italy is there anything in the prehsitory of or substrate under the original Q-Italic (Latin and others??) areas that sets them apart from the P-Italic areas (I take it thats Oscan, Umbrian etc) and may have predisposed them to a Q-P change? I have heard the theory that P-Celtic took off in the west-Alpine-NW Italy area due to the (prestigious) interaction between those area in the Hallstatt D era and the contact with Etruscans, Raetians etc. I dont know enough about the Italic languages very early history to speculate.

Regarding language I feel I should clear up some of mess regarding Q vs. P Celtic. By default the reconstructed proto-Celtic would be classed as Q-Celtic. This specific sound is actually a feature of Proto-Indo-European.

One of the features of Proto-Celtic compared to Proto-IE is the loss of Indo-European P.

The "Q" -> P shift occurred considerably later after Proto-Celtic was probably over a wide range. It's comparable to the sound shifts in German (High German has several for example d -> t -- tag vs. dag/day (Dutch/English))

It also happened in Italic and Greek languages. For example Latin and the romance languages could be called "Q-Italic" given that a number of extinct italic languages had undergone sound change. Likewise the writings of Mycaenan Greek on Linear B tables from the Bronze age could be classed as "Q-Greek" whereas Greek from the Classical era onwards could be classed as "P-Greek"

Example:Example

Irish: CeathairFrench: QuatreLatin: Quattuor

vs.

Welsh: Pedwar/Pedair (Masculine/Feminine)Gaulish: Petuarios

---Everyone of course talks about the Q/P spilt but there are several other ones in surviving Celtic languages. A good example is the following:

Proto-IE "w" -> Irish "f" / Welsh "gw"

The sound shift to different sounds in different branches of existing Celtic languages. This can be seen by looking at Gaulish where the shift didn't happen, as well as other IE languages:

Hence the irish word for vision is Fís compared to Latin Visio -- resulting in Telifís vs. Television

Comparing Irish and Welsh when you know the above rule you can see that the words fionn (find in old irish) and gwen are cognates. Both derive from proto-Celtic vindos/windos.

In the Táin the daughter of Meadhbh is Findabair (Fionnabhair), this name is cognate with the welsh Gwenhwyfar -- or as it's known to english speakers: Guinevere

Another example of course is the word Gael. In old-Irish the term most often used would have been féni -- which gave rise to Fian (warrior)/ Fianna (warrior band) and to modern english word Fenian (Fenian Brotherhood of 19th century). This is cognative with word in Brythonic that eventually became Gael. So why did we adopt this word, simple the early church in Ireland was completely Brythonic dominated. All the missionaries came from Celtic-speaking Britain. Irish as a written language was formulated along many similiar rules seen in Welsh (initial mutations for example). This basically created a Sprachbund eg. area of linguistic convergence of two languages that were already closely related. In proto-Celtic the word would be Veni- which shows up in lots of names of distinctic tribal groupings.

Even the most Irish of first names Patrick is a borrowing, mainly as Archaic Irish lacked a P sound (lost in Proto-Celtic) the oldest writings use the name used a form that swapped the p for a c (c is always hard in Irish). Wiki has good run down of the progression:

The *Qatrikias example is very apt, for example people look at Ptomley map and assume that the names are P-Celtic however they forget that the Greeks didn't the Q sound anymore and pronunced it in Greek, likewise if the information had been gained secondhand from Roman Britain the locals (speaking "p-celtic") would have the pronunced names with a P sound -- like way in archaic Irish the P was pronunced as a Q. This in my opinion has sowed confusion.

Proto-Celtic is by definition "Q-Celtic" in structure (it inherits the sound from Proto-IE). The distrubition of "Q-Celtic" languages is in the periphery of Iron age "Celtic Europe" eg. Ireland and Spain. If you ask me the sound change probably arose in and around the Alps possibly due to assimilation of non-IE speakers (who didn't have the sound in their phonology). During the Hallstat/La Tene area this became a major prestige area as a result the use rippled out among a larger Proto-Celtic speaking area.

As a modern example think of way accents change due to assumption that certain phonological features are more "hip/Cool" etc. This and mass-media leads to a "dialect flattening" where features of a "prestige" accent are adopted among speakers of a multitude of accents.

Its amazing how in the Thames Valley you got mockney, estuary English springing up in the 60s-90s and now there is a new accent heavily influence by the London dialect of Afro-Carribean (probably down to rap music culture etc) that is now almost spoken by loads of kids regardless of origins. Innit!

to paraphrase:what would Bede know about Scythis freezing his knackers off in Sunderland

My ears are burning.I think that was me, certainly has the hallmark crudity of expression.I've an idea I meant to write "What would Bede have known about Scythia anyway, sat there in Sunderland freezing his knackers off ?" As you rightly say, it was just one of those handwaving dismissive tropes beloved of those educated in the graeco-roman classics and mediaeval scholarship. More or less their equivalent of "beyond the black stump"

to paraphrase:what would Bede know about Scythis freezing his knackers off in Sunderland

My ears are burning.I think that was me, certainly has the hallmark crudity of expression.I've an idea I meant to write "What would Bede have known about Scythia anyway, sat there in Sunderland freezing his knackers off ?" As you rightly say, it was just one of those handwaving dismissive tropes beloved of those educated in the graeco-roman classics and mediaeval scholarship. More or less their equivalent of "beyond the black stump"

Ah yes, I recognise the user name. Moffat & Wilson or the next writer of a book on population geneticsd should weave in it to their text somehow.

Where was Scythia? Was it the Pontiac-Caspian steppe. Is this not the area some argue as the origin of IndoEuropeans and in proximity to the supposed origen of R1b-M269?

"In Classical Antiquity, Scythia was the area in Eurasia inhabited by the Scythians, from the 8th century BC to the 2nd century AD. Its location and extent varied over time but usually extended farther to the west than is indicated on the map opposite. The area known to classical authors as Scythia included:

The Pontic-Caspian steppe: Kazakhstan, southern Russia and Ukraine (inhabited by Scythians from at least the 8th century BC)The northern Caucasus area, including Georgia and modern day AzerbaijanSarmatia, corresponding to the modern Ukraine and parts of Belarus and PolandScythia Minor, corresponding to the southern Ukraine with the lower Danube river area and a part of modern Romania, ex-Bulgarian "

to paraphrase:what would Bede know about Scythis freezing his knackers off in Sunderland

My ears are burning.I think that was me, certainly has the hallmark crudity of expression.I've an idea I meant to write "What would Bede have known about Scythia anyway, sat there in Sunderland freezing his knackers off ?" As you rightly say, it was just one of those handwaving dismissive tropes beloved of those educated in the graeco-roman classics and mediaeval scholarship. More or less their equivalent of "beyond the black stump"

Ah yes, I recognise the user name. Moffat & Wilson or the next writer of a book on population geneticsd should weave in it to their text somehow.

I would put more store in Bede's ability to record the oral history of the the people he lived amongst above that of a few Meditteranean (non frozen) Graeco - Roman commentators who probably never visited the Isles. At least Bede's contempories ventured deep into the heart of Europe.

Regarding U106 or other minority clades in Ireland, of course its not impossible some U106 got to Ireland in prehistory. Its probability people are talking about not absolutes. However, every indicator that there is suggests U106 was bottled up quite far east until late in prehistory. People estimate that U106 is overall only about 4000 years old and that roughly speaking west of the Elbe on the continent the variance is much lower than that of U106 as a whole. Proportionately this indicates that even in places like west Germany and Holland it only really got there around the start of the Iron Age there. So, it was not geographically in a position that is know to have had contacts with Ireland in the Iron Age and there is no indication in the archaeology. I suspect some U106 might have got into the more easterly Belgic tribes in the later Iron Age. There is no archaeological evidence for Belgae in Ireland (they had a distinctive culture that doesnt appear in Ireland). However, there was the Menapii tribe in Leinster which is a duplicate name of a Belgic Tribe near the Rhine in Ireland by the 2nd century AD although whether they were really linked or just were named after the same Celtic diety is not clear. The Fir Bolg have been linked to the Belgae although again that is not certain. If the Belgae did reach Ireland I suspect it may have been as a trading post enclave and maybe in the early AD period. So I suppose you have a slight chance of a small drop of U106 in Ireland in late prehistory.

However, that is not to say that is a likely probability. We know of 1000s of Vikings founding cities and raiding and trading all around the much of Ireland for 200 years. And of course we know of a significant Norman intrusion. They left major archaeological traces and historical records of them, far more clearcut and far larger scale than any hypothetic small Belgic colony. They should have left a significant U106 input. So, probability based on all the evidence at our hands is vastly higher for that scenario.

Regardless, that is still probability (albeit a massively one sided one). You have to deal with each case an individual basis. That being so, the answer surely lies in who your matches are and what time depth. If your matches page (on FTDNA or whatever) show a lot of non-Irish matches in the last 1000 years then I think you have your answer. I would like to see someone look at the age and location of matches of Irish U106 individuals. That would be the scientific way of working out the reality.

Like I say, I'd be very surprised if I didn't have at least one male Irish ancestor who was U106. If a person goes back to their 10x great grandparents, that's 4,096 ancestors of which 2,048 are male. Certainly any Irish guy would expect that some of those male ancestors were R1a, U106, U152, M222, G2a, J2a4, and so on. If even half of 1% of an Irish person's male ancestors were U106, that would be 10.5 at 10x great grandparent range. That .5 guy would have a hard time standing.

My male line is DF23, but that certainly doesn't mean that I'm more "Irish" than some guy born in Ireland that is U106 on his Y-Line. My Irish dad could have been U106, or G2a, or U152, or R1a.... and he could have had a Norman name, or a Scots name, or a Welsh name, or whatever. I'm not Irish because my name is Kehoe and I'm DF23, I'm Irish because my family is from Ireland. And ya know what? My Taaffe family is Irish because they live in Ireland and have so for over 800+ years! And they could be J2a4 and they'd still be Irish. Go tell a J2a4 Montgomery that he isn't a Scot!

Again, Cromwell knew what an Irish guy was and he had no way of testing DNA and he didn't check IDs for Irish names. As far as I know, no Irish guy was given a "U106" or "Norman name" pass back then.

Like I say, I'd be very surprised if I didn't have at least one male Irish ancestor who was U106. If a person goes back to their 10x great grandparents, that's 4,096 ancestors of which 2,048 are male. Certainly any Irish guy would expect that some of those male ancestors were R1a, U106, U152, M222, G2a, J2a4, and so on. If even half of 1% of an Irish person's male ancestors were U106, that would be 10.5 at 10x great grandparent range. That .5 guy would have a hard time standing.

My male line is DF23, but that certainly doesn't mean that I'm more "Irish" than some guy born in Ireland that is U106 on his Y-Line. My Irish dad could have been U106, or G2a, or U152, or R1a.... and he could have had a Norman name, or a Scots name, or a Welsh name, or whatever. I'm not Irish because my name is Kehoe and I'm DF23, I'm Irish because my family is from Ireland. And ya know what? My Taaffe family is Irish because they live in Ireland and have so for over 800+ years! And they could be J2a4 and they'd still be Irish. Go tell a J2a4 Montgomery that he isn't a Scot!

Again, Cromwell knew what an Irish guy was and he had no way of testing DNA and he didn't check IDs for Irish names. As far as I know, no Irish guy was given a "U106" or "Norman name" pass back then.

I don't think anybody has said anybody is less or more Irish based on there Y DNA, nor should they. Likewise for the Welsh, English, French, German etc. etc.